Jeremy Corbyn

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
This is obviously a total waste of my time, since you're not going to concede a nanometre of ground here, but I've never heard anyone claim literally "all" of Corbyn's allies and supporters were anti-Semites. On the other hand, the equally false claim that anti-Semitism is unknown on the Labour left and that every single accusation was a "smear" is extremely common.

From the report itself:

There is nothing in the Leaked Report (or elsewhere in the evidence we have seen) to support the conclusion that the problem of antisemitism in the Party was overstated.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses

A take from one of the initial AS complainants, whose details were leaked in the earlier unofficial "report". Unsurprisingly his Twitter is full of the usual wankers abusing him.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
You're mistaking funny for "ideology I agree with". Humour should be about something unexpected, not a retread for the 1000th fucking time of the same tired point.
Tea's Alexi Sayle post - now,that's funny.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
You're mistaking funny for "ideology I agree with".

No, it's the other way round. The "[Attenborough voice]" is funny on its own merits. You just don't think it's funny because you disagree with the point it's making. And that's because you're a humourless centrist shill.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
No, it's the other way round. The "[Attenborough voice]" is funny on its own merits. You just don't think it's funny because you disagree with the point it's making. And that's because you're a humourless centrist shill.
The supposed point being that one side is entirely vindicated and that the other is bad and wrong and should die - which, aside from having a humour content of zero, is absolutely not what the report says.
 

version

Warehouse Operative
This is shameless.



It says people within the party were working against him and secretly diverted election funds from pro-Corbyn candidates in winnable seats.

How is that anything other than deliberate electoral sabotage?

It's being spun as something else because it allegedly wasn't that effective, but the actions and intent matter. Trump was unsuccessful in overturning an election, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to overturn an election. He just didn't pull it off.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
This is shameless.



It says people within the party were working against him and secretly diverted election funds from pro-Corbyn candidates in winnable seats.

How is that anything other than deliberate electoral sabotage?

It's being spun as as something else because it allegedly wasn't that effective, but it's the intent that matters. Trump was unsuccessful in overturning an election, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to overturn an election. He just didn't pull it off.
Do you have any quotes that back that up, Versh? I haven't read it obvs, am unlikely to.
 

version

Warehouse Operative
From the report,

(5) Did the diversion of funds and personnel into this Ergon House operation lose the Party the general election?

We were not in a position to commission any original psephological analysis, but we consider it to be highly unlikely. Nevertheless, the Ergon House operation was wrong.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
What it says is that it accepts that the diversion of funds was done "in good faith" on the basis that the campaign should be run defensively, although it was wrong to do so in despite of Corbyn and to the detriment of pro-Corbyn MPs and candidates - bu that it was not done deliberately in order to lose.

But I think the sums involved amounted to about 1% of Labour's overall campaign budget anyway, so it does seem pretty far-fetched to say that if that money had been spend differently, Labour would have won enough extra seats to win the election.
 

version

Warehouse Operative
I think trying to claim the secret diversion of electoral funds against the leadership's wishes was done "in good faith" is bending over backwards to be as generous as possible.
 

version

Warehouse Operative
But I think the sums involved amounted to about 1% of Labour's overall campaign budget anyway, so it does seem pretty far-fetched to say that if that money had been spend differently, Labour would have won enough extra seats to win the election.

That wasn't what I was arguing though. I was talking about whether or not funds were diverted, not whether it lost them the election.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I think trying to claim the secret diversion of electoral funds against the leadership's wishes was done "in good faith" is bending over backwards to be as generous as possible.
Possibly, but then, whether a seat is "winnable" could be a matter of opinion. It would certainly be bad to divert funds away from a Labour candidate who stood a decent chance of winning just because that candidate was seen as being close to Corbyn; OTOH, if that candidate were almost bound to lose no matter how much was available to spend on them, then you could make a good case for spending the money elsewhere (which could potentially go against the LOTO's office if that candidate were very pro-Corbyn, but would just make good electoral sense).
 
Last edited:
Top